3 ms·
Those suggestions in your last paragraph look very reasonable to me. At GitLab we explicitly allow performance testing as our ninth and final stewardship promis
by sytse 6y ago
Those suggestions in your last paragraph look very reasonable to me. At GitLab we explicitly allow performance testing as our ninth and final stewardship promise https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/#promises https://about.gitlab.com/company/stewardship/#promises But I recognize there is a trade-off and companies can reasonably but the balance at different points.
- jiggawatts 6y agoThere is no tradeoff. DeWitt clauses are corporate censorship and are 100% self-serving. There is zero benefit to consumers having no benchmarks at all available for entire product categories. There is an enormous benefit to corporations to be able to silence critics with the threat of bankruptcy via lawsuit. This is big corporations using the law to bully journalists and citizens, nothing more.
- ineedasername 6y agoPretty much, yes. That's why I included an example of how they could allow transparent assessment while still addressing their stated concerns. Because it shows the stated concerns, in having a solution, are just a BS smoke screen. (Not that my proposed scenario is still the best case for consumers, just that there's a way they could allow public benchmarks without sacrificing their concerns)